Posted on 06/26/2025 6:50:49 AM PDT by CFW
The Supreme Court will be announcing Opinions from the bench for the October 2024 term at 10:00 this morning.
Scotusblog will be liveblogging as the Opinions are released and we will be following along to try to make sense of the Court's decisions.
There are ten cases remaining undecided from this term. That does not include the cases on the emergency docket.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
Or maybe they just want to continue the anti-Trump lawfare of dragging their feet on the blatantly unconstitutional anchor babies.
“Or maybe they just want to continue the anti-Trump lawfare of dragging their feet on the blatantly unconstitutional anchor babies.”
Possible of course.
At least we have the good news from today that the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision in the Medina v. Planned Parenthood case that state Medicaid programs CAN defund Planned Parenthood.
Let’s take that as a good sign for conservatives.
I’m going to have to count and see how many opinions Justice Thomas and Alito have authored for this term. Hopefully, they have the majority of the final cases.
When it does come down, I suspect Roberts will write CASA. He likes to take the high profile cases for himself so he can “split the baby” and make a narrow decision while hoping to please everyone.
My take on the anchor babies case: the court will rule that the district judge overstepped in issuing a ‘nationwide’ order, thus allowing Trump’s EO to take effect.
Because that was the only issue asked of the court, though, the whole birthright citizenship issue will remain, and it will have to be litigated - slowly - through the system... this time in 2026 at the very earliest.
(If they DO rule that way, then it also has the effect of hamstrings ALL of these rogue judges)
Late SCOTUS ping!
I forgot to ping the list! My apologies.
later
"In this case, the justices are deciding whether it violates the religious beliefs and therefore the First Amendment rights of a group of Maryland parents to require their children to participate in instruction at their public schools that includes LGBTQ+ themes. The parents, who are Muslim, Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox, want to be able to opt their children out of instruction involving LGBTQ-themed storybooks."
As a side note to this thread, please consider the following.
The theory goes that very corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification lawmakers do not want to risk losing the next election by doing their sworn duty to use their 14th Amendment powers to make politically sensitive laws to discourage state actors from abridging peoples' constitutionally enumerated protections, the subject of this thread an example of this imo.
In other words, worthless federal CAREER lawmakers protect their voting records by letting activist Supreme Court justices who have more job security then lawmakers do get away with legislating “14A” laws from the bench so that lawmakers can get reelected and continue abusing their 16th Amendment powers (16A; direct taxes) to oppress taxpayers with unconstitutional taxes.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Patriots need to primary as many incumbent state and federal lawmakers as they can in 2026 who refuse to publicly promise to support PDJT in leading the states to repeal 16A.
The 16th Amendment is not only the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for organized crime, but has weakened our 4th Amendment protections too imo.
The 17th Amendment, popular voting for federal senators, can disappear too.
We'll call the repeal amendment Trump's Boston Tea Party II Amendment.
Once unconstitutional federal taxing and spend is stopped, the states will ultimately find a tsunami of new revenues that they probably won't know what to do with imo, state power healthcare and education certainly on the short list of top priorities.
"16th Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived [emphasis added], without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
"4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
(Again) "Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“If the tax be not proposed for the common defence, or general welfare, but for other objects, wholly extraneous, (as for instance, for propagating Mahometanism among the Turks, or giving aids and subsidies to a foreign nation, to build palaces for its kings, or erect monuments to its heroes,) it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles [emphases added].” — Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2 (1833).
The congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified the federal government's constitutionally limited powers as follows.
”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
“Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves [emphasis added]. It seems to be the law of our general nature.” - Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)
Pelosi: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." (non-FR; 6 sec.)
Illegals are indeed getting immediate Social Security, contrary to Democrat claims (7.11.24)
Democrats [and RINOs] Are Terrified Of An Educated And Informed Public (3.12.23)
If you’re looking for a quick summary of recent SC decisions this is not the place.
As i understand it, that case is not actually about anchor babies. It's about the tails of local judges wagging the nationwide injunction dogs.
“If you’re looking for a quick summary of recent SC decisions this is not the place.”
Feel free to ignore future threads.
It’s peoples’ lives. Not minutiae to them.
How do they do that if they claim the EO is unconstitutional? Hard to imagine they would have heard arguments and not address the order?
I expect that Thomas will step down at the end of the next term. Probably Alito as well.
I hope the Repulicans increase their Senate majority in the 2026 election, but they could just as easily lose. If the democrats take back control of the Senate, then they will refuse to confirm anyone that Trump nominates. It could be years before we have both a conservative President and a Republican controlled Senate again. The risk is just too great.
Feel free to ignore future replies.
This is they type of criminal alien the left (and most courts) want to give endless "due process" to when it comes to staying in our country.
In 1995, Pierre Riley, a citizen of Jamaica, entered the United States on a B–2 tourist visa that allowed him to stay for six months, but he did not depart when that time was up. 2 App. 54. He became a member of “a far-reaching and well-organized” drug trafficking gang and was convicted in 2008 for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, as well as for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime.
The first judge he went before should have looked at his record as order him immediately deported based on the above facts alone. When was it decided that our country would not only take, but also welcome, the depraved, the criminal, and the useless onto our shores?
” expect that Thomas will step down at the end of the next term. Probably Alito as well.
I hope the Repulicans increase their Senate majority in the 2026 election, but they could just as easily lose. If the democrats take back control of the Senate, then they will refuse to confirm anyone that Trump nominates. It could be years before we have both a conservative President and a Republican controlled Senate again. The risk is just too great.”
Maybe not next term and I don’t think both will step down in the same term. Thomas really enjoys what he is doing and has said that it keeps his brain healthy and active. As long as he enjoys good health, I can see Thomas staying another two years. I certainly expect both of them to step down before Trump leaves office. Neither is going to want a Democrat President to appoint their replacements.
Thank you for posting & pinging!
Thank you for posting & pinging!
You’re welcome.
Here are the remaining cases from the October 2024 term on which we expect opinions tomorrow.
All cases heard in the October, November, December and February sittings have been announced.
From January only one case remains:
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
Issue(s): Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech.
From March, two cases remain.
Louisiana v. Callais
Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature”s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.
Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research
Issue(s): (1) Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Universal Service Fund; (2) whether the FCC violated the nondelegation doctrine by using the financial projections of the private company appointed as the fund’s administrator in computing universal service contribution rates; (3) whether the combination of Congress’s conferral of authority on the FCC and the FCC’s delegation of administrative responsibilities to the administrator violates the nondelegation doctrine; and (4) whether this case is moot in light of the challengers’ failure to seek preliminary relief before the 5th Circuit.
From April, there is also two cases remaning:
Kennedy v. Braidwood Management
Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution’s appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision.
Mahmoud v. Taylor
Issue(s): Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.
And of course, there is Trump v CASA from the emergency docket.
Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should stay the district courts’ nationwide preliminary injunctions on the Trump administration’s Jan. 20 executive order ending birthright citizenship except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states.
If they were just Catholic or Christian then we know how the court would vote, thank God there are other religions involved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.